Note: The
hardcopy of this paper scanned and digitalized. Hopefully, all related errors have
been corrected. Minor editing was carried out.

Common Social
Work Framework

For the last
year and a half I have been enrolled as a student in the Faculty of Social Work
at the University
of Calgary. This
enlightening experience has exposed me to a wide array of theories regarding
general dynamics of the social work profession, as well as, established and
contemporary methods of practice. Throughout this passage of time I have come
to better identify, understand, acknowledge, and appreciate the holistic nature
of social work and the need for a common conceptual framework for holistic
social work theory and practice. With the benefit of a final year practicum
placement the opportunity exists to explore and actively apply such a framework
with an accompanied complementary assessment system to facilitate a greater
understanding of the respective field placement itself and the social work
profession in general.An ‘ecosystem framework’ suggests that a
social worker should attempt to be, primarily, comprehensive in their
philosophies and approaches to understanding and practicing the social work
profession; a philosophy which applies to micro, mezzo, and macro levels. Much
of this paradigm dates back to the work of social work theoretician and
practitioner William Gordon. Gordon was instrumental in conceptualizing the
framework that the understanding and practice social work involved not only
internal matters of the respective minds and environments but of their
interactions and relationships as well (Heinonen & Spearman, 2001). The
‘ecosystems framework’ is complemented by concepts supported in ‘systems
theory’ and ‘ecology’. ‘Systems theory’ stresses the effects of interacting
elements where multiple elements are themselves whole, interact and combine to
form a whole, and have relationships with other wholes (Heinonen &
Spearman, 2001). An open, interactive, system may receive nourishment and
sustainability from within itself and from its relationships with others
(Heinenon & Spearman, 2001). A system that is closed, or isolated, may
become increasingly vulnerable and experience entropy. Such a system manifests
itself as problems for a client. ‘Ecology’ also emphasizes the correlation
between the dynamics of permeation and health with a context of person-interaction-environment;
in this case possible harmful issues with a client, their respective
environment, and/or the interactions (Heinenon & Spearman, 2001). The
‘ecosystems framework’ could then be combined with other frameworks of the
social work profession and its respective practices.

These frameworks
concern the conceptual theories of ‘specialized’ and ‘generalist practice
methods’. Specialist concentration often provides significant knowledge
regarding a certain aspect of life and social functioning but may neglect the
importance of other systems and their relationships. ‘Generalist practice’
attempts to approach issues, or problems, from many perspectives,
possibilities, and choices, which is linked to an understanding that systems
are comprised of sets of interacting elements. A wide range of conceptual and
practical productive approaches can be simultaneously and mutually considered
and applied. Such a framework could be described as eclectic in nature as it
not only draws on different areas of social work but also incorporates external
complementary, as well as, divergent perspectives, disciplines, practices, and
paradoxes. The ‘ecosystems framework’ emphasizes the relevance of specialized
and, particularly, generalized practice.

An orientation that is sometimes
associated with a generalist practice framework is that of ‘empowerment’. A
social worker working with others can be considered as working in concert with
others, sharing ideas and forming often mutually beneficial goals. It is
important that individuals and groups share and acquire sustainable social
capital and this can arise through the transfer of knowledge and the
development of skills. ‘Empowerment’ is the process and outcome of a mutual
recognition of ability to understand, participate, and influence conditions
within and around a situation. An empowerment orientation attempts to encourage
such a context through a constructive method of social work practice conceived
within three simultaneous phases: ‘dialogue’, ‘discovery’, and ‘development’
(Miley, O’Melia, & DuBois, 2001). Each phase can be defined through
considering their associated practice processes.

From the process of ‘dialogue’
practitioners and clients engage in transactions, develop roles and sustain
cooperative partnerships defined by acceptance, respect, and trust. They also
share information including the validation of experiences, motivations and
possible resources. Finally in the dialogue phase practitioners and clients
clarify the purposes of the work such as set directions, challenges and goals
(Miley, et al., 2001). The ‘discovery’ phase involves the assessment of
potential and actual resources including identifying strengths, analysing
resource capabilities, record keeping, and the employment of assessment systems
such as the ‘person-in-environment’ classification system. During ‘discovery’,
social workers and clients identify resources to consider when constructing
plans for change (Miley, et al., 2001). Through ‘development’, practitioners
and clients utilize resources, create and strengthen partnerships with others,
and establish new opportunities (Miley, et al., 2001). The ‘development phase’
also includes recognizing successes, and integrating gains. Together the three
processes attempt to empower a client. The empowerment orientation is often
most effective when associated with an ‘ecosystems framework’.

Two proposals have been suggested in
which one may understand and practice the social work profession from an
‘ecosystems framework’. One, a ‘comprehensive conceptual framework of holistic
social work’ as developed by Ramsay (2000), is a framework of comprehensively
understanding of the dynamics that comprise the social work profession— a
common conceptual model. The other, the ‘person-interaction- environment’ classification
system, is an attempt to utilize a common and comprehensive practice method for
client assessment and planning. Such models are informed by whole systems
theory. A holistic perspective of social work suggests that the professionals
should be comprehensive in their theoretical frameworks and ways of practice.
However understanding the definitions of, and practices of, the profession
varies depending upon many factors, such as time, context, culture, available
information, experience, personal biases, and their interactions. Reactions to
these have created difficulties in communication between workers in the
profession and, to some extent, fragmented the profession within itself and
from other disciplines. In an attempt to create a social work model that could
be common to all of those in the profession Ramsay (2000) has proposed what is
described as a ‘comprehensive conceptual framework of holistic social work’.
Complementary to this comprehensive understanding of the dynamics that comprise
the social work profession is a common and comprehensive classification system
for client assessment and planning known as ‘Person-in-environment’ (Karls
& Wandrei, 1994). It is this model, and the associated classification
system, which I have come to prefer as a common social work framework and
dominant practice method.To best understand the nature of a
comprehensive conceptual framework of holistic social work and social work
practice it is best to examine some of the reasoning behind such a model. The
‘comprehensive conceptual framework of holistic social work’ model is based on,
and complemented by, ‘whole systems theory’ and generalist social work
practice. Defining qualities of ‘whole systems theory’ states that a whole
system is comprised of everything inside and outside of a system, as well as, a
system itself. Furthermore, all of the components of such a system are
interconnected to each other. A whole system, in a minimum but complete state,
consists of four components; therefore a geometric tetrahedron has been
utilized as a concrete representation of the structure of a minimum whole
system. Each of the four components of a minimum whole system can be unfolded
and multiplied to display the complexity of ever increasing patterns of
interconnecting parts. A whole systems perspective includes all of the factors
involved, considers every factor as relevant, and examines how such factors are
interrelated and correspond as a whole. Whole systems are dynamic and the
boundary of such a system is in a relationship and, along with personal and
environmental, are the points in which social work is involved. This
information considered, the complementary between ‘whole systems theory’ to
generalist social work practice becomes more apparent.

A ‘comprehensive conceptual framework of
holistic social work’, as based on a minimum whole system, is comprised of four
core components: ‘domain of practice’, ‘paradigm of the profession’, ‘domain of
the practitioner’, and ‘method(s) of practice’ (Appendix Ib) (Ramsay, 2000).
All four components can be unfolded and multiplied into progressively more
complex detail and presented as a comprehensive whole systems model (Appendix Ia).In the comprehensive perspective of the
social work profession, as proposed by Ramsay (2000), ‘domain of practice’ is
the phrase used to describe the region of work, or service area, in which the
practice of social work unifies its focus or concern. Bartlett (1970) suggested that ‘person’,
‘interaction’, and ‘environment’ as the defining characteristics of the ‘domain
of social work’. In practice it is a systemic person-in-environment assessment
of a clients’ ‘biopsychosocialspiritual’ state. With the inclusion of an
‘interaction’, or ‘in’, component into the traditionally dualistic
‘person-environment’ domain the concept of ‘relationship’ is risen to the
stature of the other two factors which defines the significance of
‘relationship’ in the social work profession.The ‘domain of practice’ component can be
multiplied into a minimum four factor system consisting of ‘persons’, ‘personal
otherness’, ‘resource otherness’, and ‘validator otherness’. The three
‘otherness’ factors are considered to be environmental as opposed to psyche or
‘self’. They acknowledge the contextual and relationship nature of social functioning
and the interpersonal nature of the social work profession (Ramsay & Karls,
1999).

The ‘persons’ factor identifies an
individual or group of people, including a family or community, accounting for
their various sizes and social configurations. Three of the four factors—
’social role and relationship functioning’, and ‘mental’, and ‘physical health
functioning’— of the ‘person-in-environment’ domain provide information which
describes various characteristics of a ‘person’ (Ramsay & Karls, 1999).
‘Personal otherness’ can be defined as an individual’s or group’s personal
social supports. Supports can include individuals, such as a friend or a family
member, to groups such as family and communities. The ‘resource otherness’
factor are informal and intimate social, political, economic, spiritual, and
geographic resources, opportunities, and goods and services that may facilitate
or restrict the social role functioning with a client’s relationship with
others. ‘Validator otherness’ is defined by absolute and relative norms in the
forms of values, beliefs, policies, ideals, customs, traditions, and laws; a
collection comprising of some of what composes ‘culture’. Individuals and
groups use validators to guide relationships with others in culture-specific
ways. The nature and quality of relationships of all factors in a system are
directly are affected by the influence, and interactions, of the respective
validators.

The ‘paradigm of the profession’ is a
phrase employed to describe the nature and philosophical foundations of the
social work profession including its values, norms, code of ethics, knowledge
base, as well as, the research and practice options and interventions of the
social work profession. A ‘common’ paradigm of values and ethics formally originated
in 1928, by the International Federation of Social Workers, and henceforth
social work practice has been recognized by a set of values, purpose,
sanctions, knowledge, and methods (Brieland, 1977). This structure has since
been further revised and developed in the last seventy years by other
federations and associations, such as the Canadian Association of Social
Workers, and has spawned the creation of regulatory systems (Ramsay, 2000). The
“Alberta Association of Registered Social Workers Social Work Standards of
Practice” guides social workers who practice in Alberta.

In 1999 Witkin
summarized a well defined outline of the core features of the social work
profession, including ‘guiding vision’, ‘values and core beliefs’,
‘interpretative framework’, and ‘primary constituencies’, which attempts to
encompass ‘common’ and ‘holistic’ dynamics of the nature of the profession. The
‘guiding vision’ is proposed as being the belief in and contribution towards a
just and civil society (Witkin, 1999). The ‘missions’ propose the fulfillment
of basic needs, the egalitarian distribution of resources, and equal
opportunity for all people as required conditions (Witkin, 1999). The ‘values
and core beliefs’ are suggestions for the fulfillment of the ‘missions’ and ‘guiding
vision’ and are applicable to individuals, families, and communities. Issues
such as that all people are entitled to basic human rights and well-being, are
to be treated with dignity and respect, have strengths, resilience, and
capacity for change and that diversity and differences in all people are
enriching and valuable are considered to be of utmost honour (Witkin, 1999).
Furthermore the promotion or restoration of mutually beneficial interactions
and transactions has been emphasized as a purpose of social work and a focus on
person-in-environment and the facilitation of constructive interactions as
central objectives. The guidelines set forth for an ‘interpretative framework’
are that ‘reality’ is contextual and relational and that people cannot be
understood without consideration of contexts, or contexts from people to whom
they refer (Witkin, 1999). This includes the knowledge base in which social
workers incorporate in their practice. Furthermore contexts depend upon
cultural and linguistic factors and also include history, physical
surroundings, language, conditions, social institutions, policies and laws, and
cultural values and practices (Witkin, 1999). Finally, contexts can alter
through with the passage of time and across cultures and situations (Witkin,
1999). The ‘primary constituencies’ include working with or on behalf of
marginalized groups who are likely to be people who are vulnerable, oppressed,
and living in poverty (Witkin, 1999).Although such core features of the
profession of social work has provided some framework to base one’s
understanding and practices emphasis remains that the profession is lacking in
the formation of a universal, or standardized, and structured paradigm to work
within. The establishment of such a paradigm has proven difficult, and is
debatable in theory and practice, but attempts could further assist social
workers in the selection of appropriate practice options that are congruent
with respective ‘person-in-environment’ assessments.

The ‘paradigm of the profession’, when
defined in the context of the respective comprehensive framework of the social
work profession, is itself comprised of four possible, interconnected, practice
options that a social worker may choose to focus upon: a ‘client system’, a ‘target
system’, an ‘action system’, and a ‘change agent system’. Each of these options
may be addressed by a social worker with the use of their own knowledge and
experience, as well as, that available from other informed sources. Focusing on
a ‘client system’ is a practice option that involves working directly with an
individual or group that has requested some interest in addressing a social
functioning need (Ramsay & Karls, 1999). The social work service could
include crisis intervention, connecting to social support services, or
counseling with an individual, group, or family. It could also be conducted on
a community scale in a form of community development as requested by a
community group. Engaging with a ‘target system’ is a practice option that
involves working with part of the ‘person-in-environment’ domain that needs to
be influenced, or persuaded, to be helpful toward a client system; It is who,
or what, it is that is to change (Ramsay & Karls, 1999). The practice
action could be directed towards affecting an individual, group, or
institution. Focusing on an ‘action system’ is the practice option that
involves working with part of the ‘person-in-environment’ domain that has
agreed to cooperate or act as a facilitator to the forces that are working with
‘client systems’ or in conjunction with ‘target systems’ (Ramsay & Karis,
1999). A practice action could be in the form of providing training and support
services to social workers or various forms of community development.
Engagement with a ‘change agent system’ is the practice option that involves
the employer or agency that a social worker may be working within, in
cooperation with, or on behalf of (Ramsay & Karls, 1999). The ‘change agent
system’ can be the subject of one of the other practice options, such as a
‘client system’, when development of a program is required.

‘Domain of the practitioner’ is the term
used to describe a social worker’s own personal and professional
‘person-in-environment’ system - their ‘domain of practice’- including ‘practitioner’,
‘personal otherness’, ‘resource otherness’, and ‘validator otherness’. Such a
domain is important to acknowledge in a comprehensive and holistic perspective
of the nature of social work as it recognizes the qualities that exist within
and around a social worker which may affect their understanding, practice, and
relationships. These qualities include a social worker’s biases, values, as
well as, practical issues. A social worker, and those affected by them, should
attempt to be conscious of such factors as they often have significant effects
on how a social worker may perceive the social work profession, their client’s
‘person-in-environment’ situation, as well as, the ‘methods of practice’ that
are selected and how they may be applied. In the discipline of social work a
practitioner needs to be flexible, diverse, and balanced in their consideration
of different theoretical approaches and the various practice options and
intervention methods that are available. Addressing this issue and critiquing such
personal qualities recognizes the link between personal and professional self
and could be mutually beneficial to a respective social worker, the individuals
they may work with, the clients they serve, and even the profession itself.‘Method(s) of practice’ is the phrase
used to describe the systematic stages of practice options and intervention
methods a social worker may include when involved in a change process with a
client---be it on a micro, mezzo, or macro level. A number of knowledge based practice
methods exist in the social work profession including ‘problem-solving
approach’, ‘structural approach’, ‘strengths perspective’, ‘Aboriginal
perspectives’, and ‘feminist perspective’. These alternatives are not exclusive
from the aforementioned ‘ecosystem framework’--- nor from each other for that
matter. In fact multiple aspects of their theoretical and practical principles
could be thought of as common to one another.

The ‘problem-solving approach’ is one of
the oldest forms of ‘Western’ social work practice. This process was originally
based loosely on the medical model and consisted of the stages of ‘study’,
‘diagnosis’, and ‘treatment’ (Heinenon & Spearman, 2001). Such a method
began an emphasis on the importance of conducting an assessment of some respect
and the relationship between a client and a social worker. Stages in the more
contemporary version of the ‘problem-solving approach’ include: ‘Initiation’,
‘engagement’, ‘assessment’, ‘planning’, ‘implementation’, ‘evaluation’, and
‘termination’. It is suggested that a contract be formed when employing the
‘problem solving approach’. The approach is typically linear in nature and
provides options for review, feedback, and readdress (Heinenon & Spearman,
2001). However issues, or problems, do not always arise and continue in such a
simple manner therefore sometimes making this model not as comprehensive and
effective an approach as that which may be required. The ‘problem solving
approach’ is complimented and furthered by these other four perspectives and
approach.‘Strengths perspective’ emphasize a
client’s capacities, abilities, and powers in order to grow as a person or
group, improvement in the quality of life, and consequently acquire greater
problem-solving capabilities and other gains (Heinonen & Spearman, 2001).
Such a perspective also embodies notions of wholeness and ‘empowerment’
(Heinonen & Spearman, 2001). The ‘strengths perspective’ and the ‘ecosystem
framework’ both stress the importance of, and connection to, environmental
factors when understanding and practicing the social work profession itself and
a client’s respective situation.

Similarly, ‘Aboriginal perspectives’
focus on the significance of strengths, wholeness, and interconnection as
central to understanding and working through challenges, healing, and achieving
‘the good life’ --- or ‘mino-pimatasiwin’ (Heinonen & Spearman, 2001).
Another, sometimes overlooked, manner in which this process can also occur is
through the relationships that can exist within the practice of social work.
With such a perspective, healing is a life-long developmental process that
involves the responsibility and betterment of not only a particular client or
group but with others around and the environment. As with the ‘strengths
perspective’ ‘Aboriginal perspectives’ claim that improvements to ones’
capacities and quality of life in turn enriches problem-solving abilities and
‘empowerment’ (Heinonen & Spearman, 2001). It is with ‘Aboriginal
perspectives’ that the concept of interconnection is absolutely pivotal.

‘Structural approach’ is based on a
conflict perspective and states that many of a client’s problems arise from
social inequalities and injustices -- their environment. These include social
factors such as economy and institutions relating to justice and social systems
as examples (Heinonen & Spearman, 2001). The ambition of ‘structural
approach’ is to assist a client in overcoming challenges between themselves and
their external environment.

Similar to the
‘structural approach’ the ‘feminist perspective’ focuses on social inequalities
and injustices. Emphasis is on reducing, or eliminating, domination,
subordination, exploitation, and oppression while promoting, acknowledging,
and, validating developments of empowerment, strengths, capacities and heath
(Heinenon & Spearman, 2001). The belief that personal and political issues
cannot be separated is central and stress is placed upon a concept of equality
between client and social worker (Heinenon & Spearman, 2001).

The ‘person-in-environment’
classification system is a ‘method of practice’, or practice tool based upon an
‘ecosystems framework’, and is utilized in the ‘assessment’/’discovery’ stage
of the practice options. Similar in intention to Ramsay’s (2000) ‘comprehensive
conceptual framework of holistic social work’ the ‘person-in- environment’
classification system was designed to be comprehensive and holistic and can
incorporate the previously mentioned approaches and perspectives. This formal
tool, or method of practice, can be a common assessment process for social
workers to universally understand, assess with, and work from (Karls &
Wandrei, 1994). It is an alternative to the traditional ‘person and/or
environment’ dualistic framework that has often been the structure of assessment.
The ‘person-in-environment’ classification system can assist in the selection
of appropriate practice options and intervention methods that may be, for
example, implemented in the ‘intervention’ phase when incorporated into a
traditional ‘problem-solving approach’. Such a decision is based on the
characteristics of a respective client, their needs, environments, and
relationships and can be understood through the results of a
‘person-in-environment’ assessment.

The ‘person-interaction-environment’
model attempts to provide a holistic classification system common to all social
workers and also enable a comprehensive assessment of social functioning
problems. These goals are facilitated through the systems ability to produce
informative needs assessment information that is broad in scope, create a
universal, or common, description of social work assessment, and utilize a
common language to the profession of social work. The social functioning
assessment addresses the social relationship of problems and strengths as well
as systemic societal problems that directly affect social functioning and well
being. A holistic assessment has potential benefit for, not only the client or
group but, the user as it provides an opportunity to learn and practice a
holistic way of conducting a social functioning assessment and perhaps a better
sense of what the next practical step could be in providing appropriate social
work assistance (Ramsay & Karls, 1999). The person-in-environment system
might also assist in clearer communication within and outside of the profession
and it can be used independently or with information from other studies or
disciplines.The basic structure of the
‘person-in-environment’ classification system is of four factors. The first is
described as ‘social role and relationship functioning’ and describes the
social roles that an individual fulfills, or is associated with, according to
recognized positions in society (Ramsay & Karls, 1999). These include a
client’s familial roles, other interpersonal roles, occupational roles and
special life situations. This factor also takes relationship types into account
that occur with others in similar or different roles (Ramsay & Karls,
1999). Examples are ambivalence, dependence, isolation, and of mixed type. Both
roles and relationship types are subject to indicators such as severity,
duration, and ability to cope. The second factor, ‘social institution’ involves
the respective, often systemic, barriers and supports in an environmental
context including economic and basic needs, education and training, as well as,
legal, health, and social services. These elements are also subject to
indicators of severity and duration. The final two factors describe ‘mental
health functioning’ and ‘physical health functioning’.

As with Ramsay’s (2000) ‘comprehensive
conceptual framework of holistic social work’ the ‘person-in-environment’
classification system can be best expressed in a four dimensional manner. This
provides a more comprehensive understanding of person, environment, context,
and their relationships. The tetrahedron, in abstract or physical form, is
considered an accurate geometric representation of the structure of ‘person-in-
environment’; a concept based in the geometric ideas of Buckminister Fuller and
the application of a minimum whole system design (Fuller & Kuromiya, 1992).
The ‘person-in-environment’ assessment system also incorporates the holistic
systems principle that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of the separated
parts’ because of the identification of unique, non-entity based,
characteristics that are formed when all elements are considered and
interconnected. A tetrahedron shape can accurately represent this principle.
Such interconnections, or relationships, are preconditions for life and social
work practice and provide support for the conceptualization of the nature of
social work as being a profession centred on interactions. The
‘person-in-environment’ assessment system is based on social work’s unique
relationship-centred perspective.In keeping with the philosophies which
comprise a ‘person-in-environment’ classification system and ‘ecological
framework’ it would only be proper to include all five --- the ‘problem-solving
approach’, ‘structural approach’, ‘strengths perspective’, ‘Aboriginal perspectives’,
and ‘feminist perspective’--- in a ‘method(s) of practice’ component of a
‘comprehensive conceptual framework of holistic social work’. To perform so is
not only congruent with basic philosophies of an ‘ecological framework’ and
‘person-in-environment’ classification system --- inclusion and interaction ---
it would, in theory and practice, potentially provide a more comprehensive
understanding and practice of the social work profession itself.Employing all of the selected methods of
practice --- the ‘problem-solving approach’, ‘structural approach’, ‘strengths
perspective’, ‘Aboriginal perspectives’, and ‘feminist perspective’---when
considering a common conceptual framework and practice assignment could be
considered a daunting task due to the quantity and depth of information that
could arise. However one must remember that some methods may be more relevant
than others depending upon factors such as context, culture, available
information, time, experiences, perspectives, and their interactions. With
different situations, select approaches, perspectives, and the resulting
information may present varying degrees of pertinence. Regardless, effort
should be made in the attempt to acquire knowledge of the concepts and
processes. This strategy can, and will, be attempted with future work
concerning final year practicum experiences and the results will be made
available in the near future for subsequent review.The construction, development, and application
of a ‘comprehensive conceptual framework of holistic social work’ and a
comprehensive and holistic classification system for client assessment and
planning, is grandiose and potentially toilsome work. However this should not
discourage individuals from examining, developing, and utilizing eclectic
perspectives. Ramsay’s (2000) ‘comprehensive conceptual framework of holistic
social work’ and its complementary ‘person-in-environment’ classification
system are two of the choices that a social worker may employ as their
theoretical and practice social work frameworks. A comprehensive, and holistic,
understanding of the nature of social work, accompanied with a comprehensive
assessment tool, further emphasizes the interconnectedness of the various dimensions
surrounding clients and the social work profession. A holistic framework and
assessment tool can help to guide research and practices, as well as, possibly
further unite the profession within itself and with other disciplines. This
would provide greater opportunity and structure to identify and address social
work, and ontological, issues on personal and systemic levels. The respective
comprehensive framework and the ‘person-in-environment’ classification system
enable a social worker to identify abstract or typically omitted concepts,
patterns, processes, and relationships that may exist and prove relevant. With
such models acknowledged and accepted as foundations with which to conceive and
practice by, a greater appreciation of the significant interconnectedness of
elements in life can be made by those within and outside of the social work
profession. The resulting perspectives and skills developed from a
‘comprehensive conceptual framework of holistic social work’, as that proposed
by Ramsay (2000), accompanied with a ‘person-in-environment’ classification
system of similar nature should hopefully prove supportive towards a final year
practicum placement, as well as, the guiding vision of social work.

ReferencesBrieland (1977). Working definition of
social work practice. Social Work,
(2), 344-345.

Ramsay R & Karls J (1999). Person in
environment classification system: Adding CD-Rom options to the social work
learning menu. New Technologies in the
Human Services, 12 (3/4), 17-28.Ramsay RF (2000). Revisiting the Working Definition: The time is right to identify a
common conceptual framework for social work. Paper presented to the
Kentucky Conference: Reworking the Working Definition, College
of Social Work, University of Kentucky,
February 2001.